12 states on path to guns with no permits

This is a discussion on 12 states on path to guns with no permits within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Interesting article.
States that have been or are considering bills in current legislative sessions include Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode ...

12 states on path to guns with no permits

Interesting article.

States that have been or are considering bills in current legislative sessions include Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virgina, according to the NRA.

It will pass in the Senate, then be vetoed by Lynch, and I am not sure if they can over ride his veto. They over rode his veto on the Castle Doctrine last year. Out beloved Police Chiefs and Sherrifs think it will cause more crime becasue folks from MA will be more bold and bring guns across the border and commit crime. Yeah, I know, stupid thinking. LEO's, don't you guys have any control in the say of the folks that speak for you!!!!!!! I ain't dogging LEO's, but your bosses.

Not sure. I keep mine because they don't allow permit less carry in places that serve alcohol such as restaurants. I don't do bars so I could care less about that but I do like to go out to eat and be able to legally defend myself if the rare case arises. I also like to travel to other states so having the AZ and NV permits allows me to go pretty much anywhere I want to go except for Joseph Stalin's Commiefornia. I am still pissed off that under LEOSA aka HR218 I could but now that I am a "lowly" civilian my life and ability to defend myself isn't as important anymore. It creates two classes of citizens IMHO and I am against it. ALL or none is the way I look at it.

I have to admit not being terribly in favor of this. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this. My thinking is this. lets say the police pull over a suspect whether it is for speeding, or some other issue. They find a gun in the car. Now, the person doesn't have a permit. How does the officer know if this person has a criminal background or not? How does the officer know if this person is legally allowed to carry a gun? Sure, they can run a background check while the guy is pulled over. But it is a lot more convenient for police to have a permit to look at.

The second thing that bothers me is how the anti-gun fanatics will view this. For example, in the shooting of Gabby Gilfords, most anti-gun fanatics will point out the fact that Jared Lughner had a CCW permit. Of course, he didn't. But since Arizona didn't require him to have one, it works out the same.

The third thing that bothers is is that it is probably also harder to convince businesses not to place "no guns" signs if they know that anyone can carry a gun, not just people who have been through background checks. RIght now I can explain to a business owner that their sign only excludes those who have gone through the training and background checks required by the state of Texas. But if suddenly everyone could carry, that would be a lot harder argument to make.

I have to admit not being terribly in favor of this. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this. My thinking is this. lets say the police pull over a suspect whether it is for speeding, or some other issue. They find a gun in the car. Now, the person doesn't have a permit. How does the officer know if this person has a criminal background or not? How does the officer know if this person is legally allowed to carry a gun? Sure, they can run a background check while the guy is pulled over. But it is a lot more convenient for police to have a permit to look at.

The second thing that bothers me is how the anti-gun fanatics will view this. For example, in the shooting of Gabby Gilfords, most anti-gun fanatics will point out the fact that Jared Lughner had a CCW permit. Of course, he didn't. But since Arizona didn't require him to have one, it works out the same.

The third thing that bothers is is that it is probably also harder to convince businesses not to place "no guns" signs if they know that anyone can carry a gun, not just people who have been through background checks. RIght now I can explain to a business owner that their sign only excludes those who have gone through the training and background checks required by the state of Texas. But if suddenly everyone could carry, that would be a lot harder argument to make.

First off, when they pull someone over they are going to do a wants and warrants check on them anyway so that addresses your first question.

Secondly, who cares what anti's think? Anti's are mentally unstable, against the US constitution and will never change their song. So what do you care? As long as you can own a firearm they are going to attack your right. Only when firearms are melted in the smelter and eradicated from the earth will they shutup and move onto something else like knives or forks. As for criminal morons like Loughner.... permit or not, law or not, ban or not... he was carrying concealed there with one thing in mind.... so why "argue" about it. If someone doesn't get it chalk it up as a gene pool that didn't get chlorinated and move on. Stop caring what stupid people think.

Third, if people post no gun signs, either shutup and carry or don't give them your money. Politely write them or tell them why they won't get your patronage and move on. Why are you arguing with stupid anyway? Take your money elsewhere or shutup about it. In some states those signs have no weight of law. Even in my state it is just a criminal trespass and I can't think of one case in my area where someone has been charged with it.

They find a gun in the car. Now, the person doesn't have a permit. How does the officer know if this person has a criminal background or not? How does the officer know if this person is legally allowed to carry a gun? Sure, they can run a background check while the guy is pulled over. But it is a lot more convenient for police to have a permit to look at.

An LEO isn't going to take a permit at face value,just like Drivers Licenses can be forged So can carry permits,not only that but the Permit may have been revoked and the guy didn't surrender it.Most LEO's will tend to either seperate you from the weapon,or keep you under watch until they run the background check